Halo 3: Graphically Unimpressive

Has everyone seen the new screenshots?gaminggeek

Looking pretty good to me. I just can't wait to see how the storyline wraps up in this game, for now at least. I absolutely loved the multiplayer in Halo 2 so I'm definately itching to see what they do in this one. Even if it is mostly the same with maybe a few new twists it should still be incredibly cool.

Has everyone seen the new screenshots?gaminggeek

Look very nice and realistically attainable.

Those are MP screens; I think the SP graphics will be a bit better. 

All of this hemming and hawing will be for naught. It's going to look great, play great, and be a critical and popular success. All of the doubters will just slink into the night, not to be heard from again :) 

Right or wrong, I hope we can revive this thread for a post-mortem analysis! Hindsight is always 20/20, but at the very least, we'll have a nice track record to go by here. I'm sticking to my guns though, with the idea that Halo 3 will probably be "good", but not the revolutionary juggernaut the first was (and what the 2nd one was hyped to be). As a halo fan and an Xbox 360 owner, I certainly hope that I'm in for the same ride I had with the first, because I played that game more than ANY game for the original Xbox (maybe not as much as Kotor/Kotor 2).

Has everyone seen the new screenshots?gaminggeek

Looks good, although rather bland and barren. Unimpressive is still the perfect word. Some of those screens are really old, too.

If Crysis ends up looking as good (or better) as it looked when they first showed it, then the kind of hardware it was shown on is irrelevant. I just don't understand why should Bungie be excused. I rarely hear people say "it's not done yet", "those are alpha/beta screens", but somehow Bungie deserves the benefit of doubt. The bottom line is this - your game should look amazing the day you put it out there, otherwise don't even bother.

Of course, we have to factor in Microsoft's tendency to get games out there regardless of how they look/play in order to get feedback, but it doesn't mean we have to do the damage control for them.

UpInFlames

1) The hardware it is shown on IS relevent. The requiements for PC games has been rising sharply especcialy with DirectX 10, Vista, and dual core processors coming out. I have no doubt that it will look great but if you want it to look as good as those screenshots and videos you will need a bleeding edge machine.

2) They deserve the benefit of the doubt because they have the track record. Bungie has been making games for a long time and the Halo games have been huge hits. If they didn't release something then people like you would be making forum topics complaining about that instead. And they are doing a MP Beta test (which I am in) to help them make the game even better.

I don't know why you are being so critical, maybe your expectations are unresonably high, but the game still has months to go and plenty can change. If the game sucks then by all means go ahead and bash it, but all I'm asking is at the very least wait closer to its release before you judge it. Do what you will, I'm out.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

If Crysis ends up looking as good (or better) as it looked when they first showed it, then the kind of hardware it was shown on is irrelevant. I just don't understand why should Bungie be excused. I rarely hear people say "it's not done yet", "those are alpha/beta screens", but somehow Bungie deserves the benefit of doubt. The bottom line is this - your game should look amazing the day you put it out there, otherwise don't even bother.

Of course, we have to factor in Microsoft's tendency to get games out there regardless of how they look/play in order to get feedback, but it doesn't mean we have to do the damage control for them.

capthavic

1) The hardware it is shown on IS relevent. The requiements for PC games has been rising sharply especcialy with DirectX 10, Vista, and dual core processors coming out. I have no doubt that it will look great but if you want it to look as good as those screenshots and videos you will need a bleeding edge machine.

2) They deserve the benefit of the doubt because they have the track record. Bungie has been making games for a long time and the Halo games have been huge hits. If they didn't release something then people like you would be making forum topics complaining about that instead. And they are doing a MP Beta test (which I am in) to help them make the game even better.

I don't know why you are being so critical, maybe your expectations are unresonably high, but the game still has months to go and plenty can change. If the game sucks then by all means go ahead and bash it, but all I'm asking is at the very least wait closer to its release before you judge it. Do what you will, I'm out.

Bungie works for us, not the other way around. Having high expectations are 100% fine when you're the consumer, because you don't owe a damn thing to the producer (not even the benefit of the doubt!). We're not talking about friends/buddies that do us favors, we're talking about a money making enterprise that does so by selling us a product. So, with that said, I think we all have a right to be critical of any producter, bungie just being one of many.

You don't go to get your brakes done, only to hear them squeek and squeel and give the mechanic's the benefit of the doubt, do you? Do you?!?!?!? If you do, you're not getting what you want and what you pay for.

Bungie works for us, not the other way around. Having high expectations are 100% fine when you're the consumer, because you don't owe a damn thing to the producer (not even the benefit of the doubt!). We're not talking about friends/buddies that do us favors, we're talking about a money making enterprise that does so by selling us a product. So, with that said, I think we all have a right to be critical of any producter, bungie just being one of many.

You don't go to get your brakes done, only to hear them squeek and squeel and give the mechanic's the benefit of the doubt, do you? Do you?!?!?!? If you do, you're not getting what you want and what you pay for.

Ernesto_basic

Speaking of expectations...

Maybe its just me, but I always expect the best in terms of graphics from first-party titles. They have lots of time for development, they're exclusive to the console, and they have the assistance of the people who actually made the system. I suppose its why I'm disappointed with Halo 3's underwhelming graphical display. Sure its not bad, but its not even close to the best the console has to offer.  I don't really see why its wrong to expect that of Bungie, especially after that original E3 trailer.

"You don't go to get your brakes done, only to hear them squeek and squeel and give the mechanic's the benefit of the doubt, do you? Do you?!?!?!? If you do, you're not getting what you want and what you pay for'

*shakes head* But it's not done and you haven't paid for anything, therefore your point is irrelevent!!!

"You don't go to get your brakes done, only to hear them squeek and squeel and give the mechanic's the benefit of the doubt, do you? Do you?!?!?!? If you do, you're not getting what you want and what you pay for'

Its not done yet and you haven't paid for anything yet, that's the point!

capthavic

Ok, then let's say you're getting your house tiled and you start to notice that they're near completion and it doesn't quite meet the requirements you have... do you just give them the benefit of the doubt? This situation mirrors that of Halo 3's. 

[QUOTE="capthavic"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

If Crysis ends up looking as good (or better) as it looked when they first showed it, then the kind of hardware it was shown on is irrelevant. I just don't understand why should Bungie be excused. I rarely hear people say "it's not done yet", "those are alpha/beta screens", but somehow Bungie deserves the benefit of doubt. The bottom line is this - your game should look amazing the day you put it out there, otherwise don't even bother.

Of course, we have to factor in Microsoft's tendency to get games out there regardless of how they look/play in order to get feedback, but it doesn't mean we have to do the damage control for them.

Ernesto_basic

1) The hardware it is shown on IS relevent. The requiements for PC games has been rising sharply especcialy with DirectX 10, Vista, and dual core processors coming out. I have no doubt that it will look great but if you want it to look as good as those screenshots and videos you will need a bleeding edge machine.

2) They deserve the benefit of the doubt because they have the track record. Bungie has been making games for a long time and the Halo games have been huge hits. If they didn't release something then people like you would be making forum topics complaining about that instead. And they are doing a MP Beta test (which I am in) to help them make the game even better.

I don't know why you are being so critical, maybe your expectations are unresonably high, but the game still has months to go and plenty can change. If the game sucks then by all means go ahead and bash it, but all I'm asking is at the very least wait closer to its release before you judge it. Do what you will, I'm out.

Bungie works for us, not the other way around. Having high expectations are 100% fine when you're the consumer, because you don't owe a damn thing to the producer (not even the benefit of the doubt!). We're not talking about friends/buddies that do us favors, we're talking about a money making enterprise that does so by selling us a product. So, with that said, I think we all have a right to be critical of any producter, bungie just being one of many.

You don't go to get your brakes done, only to hear them squeek and squeel and give the mechanic's the benefit of the doubt, do you? Do you?!?!?!? If you do, you're not getting what you want and what you pay for.

You don't make threads six months before you get your breaks replaced complaining about how they might squeak, do you? Do you!?!?!?! :lol: 

Bungie doens't work for you or for me. They work for MS and their shareholders.

If you don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt, don't. Some people will. Some have more faith than others. Some have different priorities and care an ***load more about gameplay and story than graphics.  Some people may be pleasantly surprised, others let down. In the end, all that matters is the final product, not meaningless speculation based on alpha/beta/leaked screens and low-res movies. The final product is what convinces people to put their money down or not, not pre-release speculation. 

[QUOTE="capthavic"]

"You don't go to get your brakes done, only to hear them squeek and squeel and give the mechanic's the benefit of the doubt, do you? Do you?!?!?!? If you do, you're not getting what you want and what you pay for'

Its not done yet and you haven't paid for anything yet, that's the point!

Ernesto_basic

Ok, then let's say you're getting your house tiled and you start to notice that they're near completion and it doesn't quite meet the requirements you have... do you just give them the benefit of the doubt? This situation mirrors that of Halo 3's.

This analogy doesn't really fit, but anyway: If you're under NO obligation to pay for the work unless satisfied, and you're working with a company that's satisfied you in the past, they yes you have no option but to give them the benefit of the doubt.  

1) The hardware it is shown on IS relevent. The requiements for PC games has been rising sharply especcialy with DirectX 10, Vista, and dual core processors coming out. I have no doubt that it will look great but if you want it to look as good as those screenshots and videos you will need a bleeding edge machine.

2) They deserve the benefit of the doubt because they have the track record. Bungie has been making games for a long time and the Halo games have been huge hits. If they didn't release something then people like you would be making forum topics complaining about that instead. And they are doing a MP Beta test (which I am in) to help them make the game even better.

I don't know why you are being so critical, maybe your expectations are unresonably high, but the game still has months to go and plenty can change. If the game sucks then by all means go ahead and bash it, but all I'm asking is at the very least wait closer to its release before you judge it. Do what you will, I'm out.capthavic

1) Again, irrelevant. That's just the nature of PC gaming. The only point I was making that matters for this discussion is how the game looks when it is first revealed and when it comes out. Why are you hung up on Crysis, anyway? I also mentioned BioShock, Mass Effect, and Alan Wake, but it seems you completely missed my point and went on with this irrelevant hardware discussion.

2) Believe me, I wouldn't be making threads about Halo 3 even if Bungie didn't show anything up until release day. Beta testing usually has nothing/little to do with graphics.

I don't think I'm being overly critical nor are my expectations set up unreasonably high, I'm simply commenting on what I've seen so far. I am left thoroughly unimpressed with how Bungie handled this whole ordeal (apart from the awesome E3 trailer), don't confuse these criticism for my final judgement on the game. I'm simply tired of people going on and on about how "it's not done" and using terms they never heard before like "alpha" and "beta". I'm just wondering how is this situation any different to every other game on the planet?

'Ok, then let's say you're getting your house tiled and you start to notice that they're near completion and it doesn't quite meet the requirements you have... do you just give them the benefit of the doubt? This situation mirrors that of Halo 3's.'

No it doesn't because it still has like 4-6 months to go (not near completion IMO) and if they don't make the game exactly the way you want, then you don't have to buy it. Nothing is perfect and meets everyones expectations. These guys are experienced professionals so a little benefit of the doubt should be granted.

1) The hardware it is shown on IS relevent. The requiements for PC games has been rising sharply especcialy with DirectX 10, Vista, and dual core processors coming out. I have no doubt that it will look great but if you want it to look as good as those screenshots and videos you will need a bleeding edge machine.capthavic

How is it relevant for Crysis, when by the time Crysis releases on PC later this year a mid-range graphics solution will be surperior to the hardware Crysis was originally presented on.......for less then half the price.

An Nvidia 8600GT that can be had for $150 already beats out in many benchmarks the 7900GT and X1900 that Crysis was shown on at GDC 2006 and E3 2006...at half the price compared to what those cards were retailing for back then....and the 8600 series is fully DirectX 10 capable.

In addition.....each subsequent media release of Crysis looks better then what preceeded it.....why, cause we are actually following the progression of real in-game development over time.

Unlike other developers, including Bungie, who originally show a fancy video demonstation at E3 2005 of what they hope the game will eventually look like and at the time its labeled to be "in-game", when its clear by the Alpha and Beta videos the game obviously didn't look like that in game when Bungie originally presented it in 2005....and it still doesn't look as detailed as the original presentation from E3 2005.  

2) They deserve the benefit of the doubt because they have the track record. Bungie has been making games for a long time and the Halo games have been huge hits. If they didn't release something then people like you would be making forum topics complaining about that instead. And they are doing a MP Beta test (which I am in) to help them make the game even better.capthavic

Actually....like I showed in my earlier post. The final product of Halo 2 certainly didn't live up to the hype and promises , and there were some writeups explaining some major disappointment in Halo 2 compared to what was promised.

In addition, The final product certainly didn't look as good as the original video presentation from 2002 that was claimed to be "in-game"...as I pointed out, you had places like OXM and Team Xbox even claiming Halo 2 would look as good or better then Doom III, especially in terms of lighting....that didn't happen in the final product, not even close.

Like I said, I don't see how Bungie deserves benefit of the doubt, when people certainly dont let any other developers slide in this regard. Especially given with what was originally promised with Halo 2 and how instead it failed to live up to many of those promises, hence the reason even Gamespot nominated the game its most dubious award.

'I'm simply tired of people going on and on about how "it's not done" and using terms they never heard before like "alpha" and "beta". I'm just wondering how is this situation any different to every other game on the planet?'

We keep saying it's not done because people like you keep critisizing it as if it were done and I guess I know more about games and programming than you because I have heard and used those terms for years. And as was said in the post above yours its a company that satisfied you in the past and you have no obligation to pay then you should give that company the benefit of the doubt.

[QUOTE="capthavic"]1) The hardware it is shown on IS relevent. The requiements for PC games has been rising sharply especcialy with DirectX 10, Vista, and dual core processors coming out. I have no doubt that it will look great but if you want it to look as good as those screenshots and videos you will need a bleeding edge machine.

2) They deserve the benefit of the doubt because they have the track record. Bungie has been making games for a long time and the Halo games have been huge hits. If they didn't release something then people like you would be making forum topics complaining about that instead. And they are doing a MP Beta test (which I am in) to help them make the game even better.

I don't know why you are being so critical, maybe your expectations are unresonably high, but the game still has months to go and plenty can change. If the game sucks then by all means go ahead and bash it, but all I'm asking is at the very least wait closer to its release before you judge it. Do what you will, I'm out.UpInFlames

I don't think I'm being overly critical nor are my expectations set up unreasonably high, I'm simply commenting on what I've seen so far. I am left thoroughly unimpressed with how Bungie handled this whole ordeal (apart from the awesome E3 trailer), don't confuse these criticism for my final judgement on the game. I'm simply tired of people going on and on about how "it's not done" and using terms they never heard before like "alpha" and "beta". I'm just wondering how is this situation any different to every other game on the planet?

What's with the "terms they've never heard before" remark? That's a bit close-minded. Is it that people who don't agree with you must be ignorant?

Games can come a LONG way from alpha stage (think of the leaked HL2 alpha - if you ever played that you'll know what I'm talking about) and a good way during beta.

I would ask you how is this situation any different to every other game on the planet? Virtually every game has unrealistically enhanced visuals. Virtually every game has an obscene amount of aa/af added to screens to make the game look far better than it ever will. Gears was graphically fanstastic, even a graphical landmark, and even it had exagerrated screens. I don't see a firestorm of controversy over that title, nor the hundreds of other titles released every year that do the same thing. 

Perhaps the difference here is that Bungie is being a bit more open about the dev cycle? Perhaps they decided not to offer doctored screens like every other company does? Perhaps we'll see something very common: an SP campaign that looks far better than the MP?  Perhaps things are a bit confused because a lot of the media was leaked and never intended for public consumption? 

We went through this same type of mess with HL2, with leaked media making the game look much worse than it eventually would. Some of us learned from that, other's not so much.  

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"][QUOTE="capthavic"]1) The hardware it is shown on IS relevent. The requiements for PC games has been rising sharply especcialy with DirectX 10, Vista, and dual core processors coming out. I have no doubt that it will look great but if you want it to look as good as those screenshots and videos you will need a bleeding edge machine.

2) They deserve the benefit of the doubt because they have the track record. Bungie has been making games for a long time and the Halo games have been huge hits. If they didn't release something then people like you would be making forum topics complaining about that instead. And they are doing a MP Beta test (which I am in) to help them make the game even better.

I don't know why you are being so critical, maybe your expectations are unresonably high, but the game still has months to go and plenty can change. If the game sucks then by all means go ahead and bash it, but all I'm asking is at the very least wait closer to its release before you judge it. Do what you will, I'm out.Uncle_Tbag

I don't think I'm being overly critical nor are my expectations set up unreasonably high, I'm simply commenting on what I've seen so far. I am left thoroughly unimpressed with how Bungie handled this whole ordeal (apart from the awesome E3 trailer), don't confuse these criticism for my final judgement on the game. I'm simply tired of people going on and on about how "it's not done" and using terms they never heard before like "alpha" and "beta". I'm just wondering how is this situation any different to every other game on the planet?

What's with the "terms they've never heard before" remark? That's a bit close-minded. Is it that people who don't agree with you must be ignorant?

Games can come a LONG way from alpha stage (think of the leaked HL2 alpha - if you ever played that you'll know what I'm talking about) and a good way during beta.

I would ask you how is this situation any different to every other game on the planet? Virtually every game has unrealistically enhanced visuals. Virtually every game has an obscene amount of aa/af added to screens to make the game look far better than it ever will. Gears was graphically fanstastic, even a graphical landmark, and even it had exagerrated screens. I don't see a firestorm of controversy over that title, nor the hundreds of other titles released every year that do the same thing.

Perhaps the difference here is that Bungie is being a bit more open about the dev cycle? Perhaps they decided not to offer doctored screens like every other company does? Perhaps we'll see something very common: an SP campaign that looks far better than the MP? Perhaps things are a bit confused because a lot of the media was leaked and never intended for public consumption?

We went through this same type of mess with HL2, with leaked media making the game look much worse than it eventually would. Some of us learned from that, other's not so much.

No, the media the preceded halo 2's launch made the game look MUCH BETTER than the final product... not the other way around. Obviously, you missed that lesson. 

We went through this same type of mess with HL2, with leaked media making the game look much worse than it eventually would. Some of us learned from that, other's not so much.

Uncle_Tbag

Actually, No we didnt....the leaked Media of HL2 looked exactly the same as what Valve had presented at E3 2003......feel free to pull up screens from the Source leak, they look no different then the Traptown video Valve showcased at E3 2003. The problem with the leak is that it was practically unplayable and there was basically no AI code.

But all features that were presented and promised for HL2 at E3 2003 actually showed up in the final product.
When the final product of HL2 released, it looked better then what was originally presented at E3 2003.
The final product of HL2 had all the physics and interaction with the environment we were originally promised.
The final product of HL2 featured the excellent character facial expression capability we were originally promised.
In fact, the level that was originally Traptown in the E3 2003 presentation was actually better as Ravenholm in the final product.

Can you say the same for Halo 2?

Did the final products of Halo 2 look as good in-game as the presentation from E3 2002 with the lighting we were promised.....No.

Did the final product of Halo 2 have the big grand epic story and single player campaign bungie went on about for so long.....No.

Did that earth level from the E3 2003 Halo 2 demo appear in the final product, or at least was it altered into something superior....No.

Didn't the whole marketing for Halo 2 go on about how the game would be about saving Earth....a notion further solidified by the E3 2003 demo.....things didn't exactly turn out that way as this article points out .

So no...we didn't go through the same type of mess with Half Life 2.....Halfe Life 2 actually delivered on all its original promises from April and May 2003, and then some, hence the reason it nabbed this .

[QUOTE="Uncle_Tbag"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"][QUOTE="capthavic"]1) The hardware it is shown on IS relevent. The requiements for PC games has been rising sharply especcialy with DirectX 10, Vista, and dual core processors coming out. I have no doubt that it will look great but if you want it to look as good as those screenshots and videos you will need a bleeding edge machine.

2) They deserve the benefit of the doubt because they have the track record. Bungie has been making games for a long time and the Halo games have been huge hits. If they didn't release something then people like you would be making forum topics complaining about that instead. And they are doing a MP Beta test (which I am in) to help them make the game even better.

I don't know why you are being so critical, maybe your expectations are unresonably high, but the game still has months to go and plenty can change. If the game sucks then by all means go ahead and bash it, but all I'm asking is at the very least wait closer to its release before you judge it. Do what you will, I'm out.Ernesto_basic

I don't think I'm being overly critical nor are my expectations set up unreasonably high, I'm simply commenting on what I've seen so far. I am left thoroughly unimpressed with how Bungie handled this whole ordeal (apart from the awesome E3 trailer), don't confuse these criticism for my final judgement on the game. I'm simply tired of people going on and on about how "it's not done" and using terms they never heard before like "alpha" and "beta". I'm just wondering how is this situation any different to every other game on the planet?

What's with the "terms they've never heard before" remark? That's a bit close-minded. Is it that people who don't agree with you must be ignorant?

Games can come a LONG way from alpha stage (think of the leaked HL2 alpha - if you ever played that you'll know what I'm talking about) and a good way during beta.

I would ask you how is this situation any different to every other game on the planet? Virtually every game has unrealistically enhanced visuals. Virtually every game has an obscene amount of aa/af added to screens to make the game look far better than it ever will. Gears was graphically fanstastic, even a graphical landmark, and even it had exagerrated screens. I don't see a firestorm of controversy over that title, nor the hundreds of other titles released every year that do the same thing.

Perhaps the difference here is that Bungie is being a bit more open about the dev cycle? Perhaps they decided not to offer doctored screens like every other company does? Perhaps we'll see something very common: an SP campaign that looks far better than the MP? Perhaps things are a bit confused because a lot of the media was leaked and never intended for public consumption?

We went through this same type of mess with HL2, with leaked media making the game look much worse than it eventually would. Some of us learned from that, other's not so much.

No, the media the preceded halo 2's launch made the game look MUCH BETTER than the final product... not the other way around. Obviously, you missed that lesson.

You don't know the difference between HL2 and H2? Did you miss that "lesson?"

You don't know the difference between HL2 and H2? Did you miss that "lesson?"

Uncle_Tbag

The difference is the final product of HL2 delivered on all its original promises and the final product of HL2 looked better then anyand all of its original presented media ......Halo 2 did not.

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"][QUOTE="Uncle_Tbag"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"][QUOTE="capthavic"]1) The hardware it is shown on IS relevent. The requiements for PC games has been rising sharply especcialy with DirectX 10, Vista, and dual core processors coming out. I have no doubt that it will look great but if you want it to look as good as those screenshots and videos you will need a bleeding edge machine.

2) They deserve the benefit of the doubt because they have the track record. Bungie has been making games for a long time and the Halo games have been huge hits. If they didn't release something then people like you would be making forum topics complaining about that instead. And they are doing a MP Beta test (which I am in) to help them make the game even better.

I don't know why you are being so critical, maybe your expectations are unresonably high, but the game still has months to go and plenty can change. If the game sucks then by all means go ahead and bash it, but all I'm asking is at the very least wait closer to its release before you judge it. Do what you will, I'm out.Uncle_Tbag

I don't think I'm being overly critical nor are my expectations set up unreasonably high, I'm simply commenting on what I've seen so far. I am left thoroughly unimpressed with how Bungie handled this whole ordeal (apart from the awesome E3 trailer), don't confuse these criticism for my final judgement on the game. I'm simply tired of people going on and on about how "it's not done" and using terms they never heard before like "alpha" and "beta". I'm just wondering how is this situation any different to every other game on the planet?

What's with the "terms they've never heard before" remark? That's a bit close-minded. Is it that people who don't agree with you must be ignorant?

Games can come a LONG way from alpha stage (think of the leaked HL2 alpha - if you ever played that you'll know what I'm talking about) and a good way during beta.

I would ask you how is this situation any different to every other game on the planet? Virtually every game has unrealistically enhanced visuals. Virtually every game has an obscene amount of aa/af added to screens to make the game look far better than it ever will. Gears was graphically fanstastic, even a graphical landmark, and even it had exagerrated screens. I don't see a firestorm of controversy over that title, nor the hundreds of other titles released every year that do the same thing.

Perhaps the difference here is that Bungie is being a bit more open about the dev cycle? Perhaps they decided not to offer doctored screens like every other company does? Perhaps we'll see something very common: an SP campaign that looks far better than the MP? Perhaps things are a bit confused because a lot of the media was leaked and never intended for public consumption?

We went through this same type of mess with HL2, with leaked media making the game look much worse than it eventually would. Some of us learned from that, other's not so much.

No, the media the preceded halo 2's launch made the game look MUCH BETTER than the final product... not the other way around. Obviously, you missed that lesson.

You don't know the difference between HL2 and H2? Did you miss that "lesson?"

Samantics aside, are we not talking about Halo? They set the precedence with Halo 2. This isn't some new phenomina or anomaly.

What's with the "terms they've never heard before" remark? That's a bit close-minded. Is it that people who don't agree with you must be ignorant?Uncle_Tbag

No, but I never see these excuses in any other screenshot/video threads, yet they seem to be all the rage concerning Halo 3. 

Games can come a LONG way from alpha stage (think of the leaked HL2 alpha - if you ever played that you'll know what I'm talking about) and a good way during beta.

I would ask you how is this situation any different to every other game on the planet? Virtually every game has unrealistically enhanced visuals. Virtually every game has an obscene amount of aa/af added to screens to make the game look far better than it ever will. Gears was graphically fanstastic, even a graphical landmark, and even it had exagerrated screens. I don't see a firestorm of controversy over that title, nor the hundreds of other titles released every year that do the same thing. 

Perhaps the difference here is that Bungie is being a bit more open about the dev cycle? Perhaps they decided not to offer doctored screens like every other company does? Perhaps we'll see something very common: an SP campaign that looks far better than the MP?  Perhaps things are a bit confused because a lot of the media was leaked and never intended for public consumption? 

We went through this same type of mess with HL2, with leaked media making the game look much worse than it eventually would. Some of us learned from that, other's not so much.Uncle_Tbag

I am well aware that games can come a long way even in a matter of weeks and that Halo 3 is not finished, and that's exactly why I find this constant repetition very annoying. Last E3 people tore apart Too Human and I didn't see many people going on how it's not done and that it's pre-alpha or whatever. Why should we care, anyway? The point is to express your opinion on how you think the screens/videos look right now - not predict how it will look when the game finally releases. We'll revise the finished game once it comes out.

As far as I can recall, Half-Life 2 blew my mind every time I saw it, and that's the whole point here - ever since last year's awesome trailer, everything I've seen of Halo 3 has gotten an apathetic "meh" from me.

[QUOTE="Uncle_Tbag"]

We went through this same type of mess with HL2, with leaked media making the game look much worse than it eventually would. Some of us learned from that, other's not so much.

Robnyc22

Actually, No we didnt....the leaked Media of HL2 looked exactly the same as what Valve had presented at E3 2003......feel free to pull up screens from the Source leak, they look no different then the traptown video Valve showcases at E3 2003. The problem with the leak is that it was practically unplayable and there was basically no AI code.

But all features that were presented and promised for HL2 at E3 2003 actually showed up in the final product....when the final product of HL2 released, it looked better then what was originally presented at E3 2003. The final product of HL2 had all the physics we were originally promised. In fact, the level that was originally Traptown in the E3 2003 presentation was actually better as Ravenholm in the final product.

Did you ever play it? The lighting wasn't even present and it included a lot of placeholder textures.  

Can you say the same for Halo 2?

Actually, you can document a lot more cut from HL2 than H2. So no, you can't, just not it the way you think.  

Did the final products of Halo 2 look as good in-game as the presentation from E3 2002 with the lighting we were promised.....No.

What game does? And you're comparing a game on aging Xbox 1 hardware that tried to push the console way too far, not screens from H3 which are very doable on the 360. 

Did the final product of Halo 2 have the big grand epic story and single player campaign bungie went on about for so long.....No.

Relative judgement. The game had its flaws, but had excellent pacing which is preferrable to a long game riddled with filler.

Does this mean anything for H3? No.  

Did that earth level from the E3 2003 Halo 2 demo appear in the final product, or at least was it altered into something superior....No.

Where areas cut from HL2? Yes. Did this diminish the game? No. Does this have any bearing on H3? No.  

Didn't the whole marketing for Halo 2 go on about how the game would be about saving Earth....a notion further solidified by the E3 2003 demo.....things didn't exactly turn out that way as this article points out .

That's why the current motto is "finish the fight." If the game were as bad as you make it out to be and not so well pace, not everyone would have finished the campaign, enabling them to complain about the abrubt ending. It deserved the criticism, but it also deserves praise for its story pacing. 

So no...we didn't go through the same type of mess with HL2.....HL2 actually delivered on all its original promises from May 2003, and then some.

No it didn't. There were many cuts, the most infamous of which is the Hydra. Seriously, how can you act like such a know-it-all and not remember the Hydra? 

Link

Other cuts from the game included a drivable jetski, which was eventually replaced by the airboat in the final game. Another vehicle to be included was what looked like a large mining device, to be used in Ravenholm. Also, many weapons were cut. These Weapons cut included the following:

• The XM29 OICW, likely cut because of the implausibility of coming across such a weapon in Half-Life 2's universe
• An ice axe, likely picked up during the Arctic section of the game which was planned to take place after the Borealis. This is similar to the stunstick, which was also cut.
• A flare gun, found on the icebreaker ship Borealis
• Hopwire grenade - a ball which the player throws and which, after several seconds, leaps up into the air and shoots out several wires which, when tripped, cause the ball and all its tethers to detonate (note: the hopwire grenade can be found in Half-Life 2: Episode One as a hidden weapon. It creates a small black hole that disintegrate everything next to it)(Based on the M86 Pursuit-Deterrent Munition)
• The Combine Guard Gun, a weapon similar to the Strider's cannon which was used by a cut enemy named the Combine Guard
• The Immolator, the device used by the Cremator to clean up after resistance had been quashed. In Missing Information, it shoots out green electricity for several seconds, igniting certain enemies and dissolving their corpses.
• S.L.A.M., Selectable Lightweight Attack Munitions, as used in HL2DM
• A variety of light and heavy machine guns
• Incendiary rifle, as seen in the E³ 2003 video "Tunnels"
• A number of tools with no offensive capabilities
• Fire extinguisher
• A second Gravity Gun, the Physgun, which offered a different method of manipulating the environment and the ability to weld objects together, which was later re-tooled and used in mods such as Garry's Mod
• Binoculars
• Heckler & Koch MP5K Submachinegun.
• AK-47
• Grenade with no LED light, which also made a bigger explosion
• A much more powerful Franchi Spas-12 shotgun which also looks different than the final version in the game
• The RPG could also hold more than 3 rockets
• The standard development kit released with the game also mention an incomplete weapon that was intended to provide the player the ability to use various small objects as a weapon (bottles, planks, etc.)
• The standard pistol also ejected shell casings when being shot, unlike the one in the final game.
• Molotov Cocktails

Most, if not all of these weapons were usable in the 2003 leak. Some slightly unknown weapons were:

• The 'Brickbat', which was a nickname for a short-lived weapon, a throwable rock or throwable bottle.
• The 'Rollerwand', which could have been the equivalent to Episode 1's ability to control Rollermines.
• The Manhack (weapon_manhack), which apparently may have been used as the first person view for the manhacks at the Manhack Arcade.

The book Half-Life 2: Raising the Bar revealed many of the game's original settings and action that were cut down or removed entirely from the final game.[13]Half-Life 2 was originally intended to be a far darker game with far grittier artwork where the Combine were more obviously draining the oceans for minerals and replacing the atmosphere with noxious, murky gases. Nova Prospekt was originally intended to be a small Combine rail depot built on an old prison in the wasteland (the depot model remains in the game, visible from the beach and trash compactor). Eventually, Nova Prospekt grew and grew from a stopping-off point along the way to the destination itself.

Half-Life 2 was also originally intended to be much more diverse in settings. Parts of the book detail how Gordon would fight alongside characters such as Odessa Cubbage, albeit under a different name and in a different place, as well as fighting together with Colonel Vance-a character that was later merged with Eli to become Doctor Eli Vance-and Vance's forces. In addition, the player was to follow a vastly different journey from what is in the final release.

Other cuts from the game included a drivable personal water craft and additional weapons. Weapons cut included the OICW seen in an E3 demonstration video and two different models of the gravity gun or Physgun, which is seen in another E3 video, also depicting a level cut from Ravenholm, dubbed "Traptown."

At first Valve was to include a sniper rifle as one of the weapons Gordon Freeman could wield. This weapon was soon replaced by the crossbow.

It remains unknown if most of the cut Half-Life 2 scenes will eventually be completed and released, or if they are lost forever. A removed section of the original Half-Life was eventually released as the Half-Life: Uplink demo; a similar situation was in place with the HDR technology demo, Lost Coast, which was based on a scene that was cut from the sequel. It is possible that more removed sections of HL2 will be seen in future expansion packs.

Some of the cut content is available in a work-in-progress mod called Missing Information, constructed using the leaked Half-Life 2 betas as a basis. In addition to several cut weapons, the mod also includes a level set on the stranded icebreakerBorealis and the E3 demonstrations. This mod has not been sanctioned by Valve, being described as "illegal content,"[62] and official permission has not been given for the redistribution of modified versions of the original leaked material.[63]

Samantics aside, are we not talking about Halo? They set the precedence with Halo 2. This isn't some new phenomina or anomaly.

Ernesto_basic

It has nothing to do with semantics. I was pointing out how bad the alpha leak of Half-Life 2 looked as an example of how far an alpha build can evolve.

I would ask you how is this situation any different to every other game on the planet? Virtually every game has unrealistically enhanced visuals. Virtually every game has an obscene amount of aa/af added to screens to make the game look far better than it ever will. Gears was graphically fanstastic, even a graphical landmark, and even it had exagerrated screens. I don't see a firestorm of controversy over that title, nor the hundreds of other titles released every year that do the same thing.

Uncle_Tbag

Far Cry, Half Life 2, F.E.A.R.......none of those had "unrealistically enhanced visuals" compared to what was received in the final product, nor did games like RE4 or God of War, both considered benchmarks for their systems.

So I don't know where you are getting this claim that virtually every game has.

[QUOTE="Uncle_Tbag"]

You don't know the difference between HL2 and H2? Did you miss that "lesson?"

Robnyc22

The difference is the final product of HL2 delivered on all its original promises and the final product of HL2 looked better then anyand all of its original presented media ......Halo 2 did not.

No it didn't, and that's extensive documented. Read the above post and be educated.

The final product screen looks a lot better than the original presentation, which only reinforces my point about H3: a game can come a long way from alpha to beta to release.

It's odd: the cut of the Hydra is one of the most famous cuts in gaming, and you're so insistent that nothing was cut from HL2.

I'm honestly amused at the near system wars mentality and illogical analogies being put forth even after we've gotten the screenshot updates.

You would think the detractors would shut up even after their skepticism has been completely refuted.

[QUOTE="Uncle_Tbag"]

I would ask you how is this situation any different to every other game on the planet? Virtually every game has unrealistically enhanced visuals. Virtually every game has an obscene amount of aa/af added to screens to make the game look far better than it ever will. Gears was graphically fanstastic, even a graphical landmark, and even it had exagerrated screens. I don't see a firestorm of controversy over that title, nor the hundreds of other titles released every year that do the same thing.

Robnyc22

Far Cry, Half Life 2, F.E.A.R.......none of those had "unrealistically enhanced visuals" compared to what was received in the final product, so I don't know where you are getting this claim that virtually every game has.

You're right. In fact, this problem/tactic is most prevalent with console developers. I don't see why we're bringing Half Life 2 into the discussion, because this is about Halo, which by the way, has Halo 2's media fiasco to set the tone. Realistically, Bungie wouldn't benefit by releasing underwhelming media... it's very close to completion and they're probably in the fina phases, which include testing for bugs, certification, and accredidation. When you go through this cycle, you can't and don't want to make major changes at the last minute, because that causes scope creep (I'm speaking from experience).

I'm honestly amused at the near system wars mentality and illogical analogies being put forth even after we've gotten the screenshot updates.

You would think the detractors would shut up even after their skepticism has been completely refuted.

 

MarcusAntonius

Well that's it, it hasn't been refuted. Maybe they're great to you, but your opinion obviously doesn't represent everyone's! 

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

I'm honestly amused at the near system wars mentality and illogical analogies being put forth even after we've gotten the screenshot updates.

You would think the detractors would shut up even after their skepticism has been completely refuted.

 

Ernesto_basic

Well that's it, it hasn't been refuted. Maybe they're great to you, but your opinion obviously doesn't represent everyone's! 

No, just those of us who reside in Reality-land. We've now seen one graphical update, which can't possibly mean that there won't be another one anytime in the next six months before its launched, eh?

Come on, give us another analogy.

[QUOTE="Uncle_Tbag"]

I would ask you how is this situation any different to every other game on the planet? Virtually every game has unrealistically enhanced visuals. Virtually every game has an obscene amount of aa/af added to screens to make the game look far better than it ever will. Gears was graphically fanstastic, even a graphical landmark, and even it had exagerrated screens. I don't see a firestorm of controversy over that title, nor the hundreds of other titles released every year that do the same thing.

Robnyc22

Far Cry, Half Life 2, F.E.A.R.......none of those had "unrealistically enhanced visuals" compared to what was received in the final product, nor did games like RE4 or God of War, both considered benchmarks for their systems.

So I don't know where you are getting this claim that virtually every game has.

Yes, HL2 did, but it wasn't an egregious offender like many, many game are.  

No it didn't, and that's extensive documented. Read the above post and be educated.

The final product screen looks a lot better than the original presentation, which only reinforces my point about H3: a game can come a long way from alpha to beta to release.

It's odd: the cut of the Hydra is one of the most famous cuts in gaming, and you're so insistent that nothing was cut from HL2.

Uncle_Tbag

What original promises did HL2 not deliver on?......the physics, graphics, character expression capabilities, and interaction with the environment where all intact in the final product.

Now you're really grasping for straws acting like the Hydra being cut is equivalent to some major feature or design being cut from what was original promised. The Hydra was not a promise of any kind in terms of graphics, gameplay design, or story. Second....it was cut for a reason, being that it wasn't fun to fight against.

Was Halo 2's lighting and graphics from the E3 2002 presentation replaced with something better or even delivered in any way....No.
Was Halo 2's E3 2003 Earth level replaced with something better....No.
Was the epic storyline and single player campaign that was promised delivered....No.

Yes, HL2 did, but it wasn't an egregious offender like many, many game are.

Uncle_Tbag

Ummm.....No, and I can easily back this up cause these in-game screens from the final product look better then that screen, both in terms of the character design and water effect:

And those are before the improvements like the effect Lost Coast added....

[QUOTE="Uncle_Tbag"]

No it didn't, and that's extensive documented. Read the above post and be educated.

The final product screen looks a lot better than the original presentation, which only reinforces my point about H3: a game can come a long way from alpha to beta to release.

It's odd: the cut of the Hydra is one of the most famous cuts in gaming, and you're so insistent that nothing was cut from HL2.

Robnyc22

What original promises did HL2 not deliver on?......the physics, graphics, character expression capabilities, and interaction with the environment where all intact in the final product.

Now you're really grasping for straws acting like the Hydra being cut is equivalent to some major feature or design being cut from what was original promised. The Hydra was not a promise of any kind in terms of graphics, gameplay design, or story. Second....it was cut for a reason, being that it wasn't fun to fight against.

Was Halo 2's lighting and graphics from the E3 2002 presentation replaced with something better or even delivered in any way....No.
Was Halo 2's E3 2003 Earth level replaced with something better....No.
Was the epic storyline and single player campaign that was promised delivered....No.

It was cut because they couldn't get it to work right in the time allotted. Devs reported that you would see this cool looking water creature, but that it didn't feel right when it attacked you. It was too difficult to pull off from a physics and graphical standpoint, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked given more time. Same goes for the Earth level on H2. 

Are you going to just ignore that LONG list of elements cut from HL2 I posted? That's pretty low.

Anyway, like Marcus pointed out, the new screens look a lot better and render the original point of this thread moot. The OP wasn't impressed with the screens, now much improved screens are out. If you're going to judge a game by pre-release screens, you should stick to that standard.

Not to mention that your entire argument is based on a gigantic fallacy: that because H2 didn't live up to the hype, H3 won't. By that logic, since DMC2 was a flop, so was DMC3. But it wasn't. They have a lot more leeway in terms of hardware power to work with in H3. They were shooting for the stars with H2 when the Xbox could only give them the moon. This isn't the case with the 360. You're obviously driven nuts by the whole Halo subject and can't reason clearly on the matter or you'd realize this. 

As far as those HL2 screens, perhaps the difference could very well be attributed to the hardware they were run on? Just a thought. After all, that could be an important factor, unless that info was listed where you picked those shots up, then nevermind.MarcusAntonius

The hardware doesn't matter...since, as I showed above....the final product of HL2 is capable of looking better then any and all of the media from when it was original presented.....ie, the final product of Half Life 2 clearly delivered on any and all of the original visual promises.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]As far as those HL2 screens, perhaps the difference could very well be attributed to the hardware they were run on? Just a thought. After all, that could be an important factor, unless that info was listed where you picked those shots up, then nevermind.Robnyc22

The hardware doesn't matter...since, as I showed above....the final product of HL2 is capable of looking better then any and all of the media from when it was original presented.....ie, the final product of Half Life 2 clearly delivered on any and all of the original visual promises.

So now it's just "visual promises." That's a rather nebulous claim. They didn't deliver on all of the intended visual effects either. HDR was demonstrated at E3, but not present at release. It's nice they keep upgrading the engine, and release tech demos like LC, but that's a far cry from included something in your release. 

I thought you said they delivered on anything and everything, not just graphics?  You care so much about the one level cut from H2, you seem obsessed with it in fact, yet the levels cut from HL2 don't bother you; why is that?

From wiki: 

Many E3 demonstrations never made the cut, either. The most popular among users, found in the 2003 leak as unfinished maps, are:

• Terminal, whose remnants can be found on the HL2 Box Art. This was also used in the HL2 Teaser Trailer.
• Industrial, which used an extremely early HL2 concept of child workers. This was likely dropped due to its children sweatshops.
• Depot, a map showing parts of the now-nonexistent Wasteland area surrounding the HL2 Depot.

Some other maps, which are very incomplete, are:

• Strider, which was actually almost complete, with the exception of missing scripts which made it unplayable. Some parts of it were later recycled to use in the Hydra demo. A picture of this can be found around areas like Gamespot.It is also one of the only pictures which shows a group of gasmask citizens.
• Sniper, which started as a player running through a ruin-covered street to destroy a sniper. This is also the earliest leaked map to use the sniper.

Are you going to just ignore that LONG list of elements cut from HL2 I posted? That's pretty low.

Uncle_Tbag

You mean that long list of things, many of which that werent even revealed that they existed or were even being considered for the game until AFTER the game had shipped. :|  

People didn't even know about the existence many of those things until the Raising the Bar book released with the game in November 2004.

How does information on cut content no one knew about equate to an original promise?

The only two things people did know about was the hydra....which is one minor enemy and isnt a cut feature....or some of the gun which was replaced with something better anyway. 

They didn't deliver on all of the intended visual effects either. HDR was demonstrated at E3, but not present at release. It's nice they keep upgrading the engine, and release tech demos like LC, but that's a far cry from included something in your release.Uncle_Tbag

HDR wasnt demonstrated at E3 2003.

HDR was demonstated as a tech demo over the summer of 2003 for the capabilities of the Source engine....not the game, you do realize they were trying to sell the engine.

You do realize the Source engine has HDR.

I thought you said they delivered on anything and everything, not just graphics? You care so much about the one level cut from H2, you seem obsessed with it in fact, yet the levels cut from HL2 don't bother you; why is that?

From wiki:

Many E3 demonstrations never made the cut, either. The most popular among users, found in the 2003 leak as unfinished maps, are:

• Terminal, whose remnants can be found on the HL2 Box Art. This was also used in the HL2 Teaser Trailer.
• Industrial, which used an extremely early HL2 concept of child workers. This was likely dropped due to its children sweatshops.
• Depot, a map showing parts of the now-nonexistent Wasteland area surrounding the HL2 Depot.

Some other maps, which are very incomplete, are:

• Strider, which was actually almost complete, with the exception of missing scripts which made it unplayable. Some parts of it were later recycled to use in the Hydra demo. A picture of this can be found around areas like Gamespot.It is also one of the only pictures which shows a group of gasmask citizens.
• Sniper, which started as a player running through a ruin-covered street to destroy a sniper. This is also the earliest leaked map to use the sniper.

Not to mention the laundry list of characters, weapons, and vehicles cut from the game.Uncle_Tbag

Again....levels that were either replaced with something better or  we didn't know about their existence until after the game released or where never part of any official presentation to begin with.

Most of the complainers still don't understand what's going on here.  So let me explain:

I saw Gears of War demoed by "Cliffy B" at the 360 launch event nearly a year before it was eventually released.  The game's graphics looked amazing.  But the frame rate was rather horrid, and the game clearly wouldn't be able to be enjoyed much until the code was optimized and the graphics were toned down some.  So, basically, you have a game with excellent graphics that you can't play yet.

Bungie has taken a different approach.  They know that Halo 3 will be played for millions upon millions of hours, so the gameplay needs to be rock solid.  You can't take a Gears approach to this.  You can't have amazing graphics and a horrible frame rate.  So they use temporary graphics and Halo 2 elements while they fine-tune the gameplay, while the artists are working on improving the graphics.

Just look at any one of the gameplay videos.  The game is fully playable and they are able to test out all of the weapons, levels, and features of the game.  The frame rate looks solid.  We are all going to be playing the game in a couple weeks, still  months before its release.  You have to have pretty stable code to open yourself up to millions of beta testers months before your game ships.  That wouldn't be happening if the graphics were already maxed out.

In the end, though, Bungie seems very focused right now on getting the gameplay just right above making for a pretty graphical show.  And, frankly, that's the approach every game developer should be taking.

Right, so one H2 level that is demonstrated at E3 but then cut represents a crime against Humanity, while HL2 levels, creatures, and weapons demonstrated at E3 then subsequently cut is a non-issue. You may not have known about their existence, but people who follow E3 and/or the leaked beta knew. People who followed the development of the game knew about their existence. 

You have absolutely nothing to back up your assertion that these elements were replaced with something better in HL2 but not H2. That is just grasping at straws.

Most of the complainers still don't understand what's going on here. So let me explain:

I saw Gears of War demoed by "Cliffy B" at the 360 launch event nearly a year before it was eventually released. The game's graphics looked amazing. But the frame rate was rather horrid, and the game clearly wouldn't be able to be enjoyed much until the code was optimized and the graphics were toned down some. So, basically, you have a game with excellent graphics that you can't play yet.

Bungie has taken a different approach. They know that Halo 3 will be played for millions upon millions of hours, so the gameplay needs to be rock solid. You can't take a Gears approach to this. You can't have amazing graphics and a horrible frame rate. So they use temporary graphics and Halo 2 elements while they fine-tune the gameplay, while the artists are working on improving the graphics.

Just look at any one of the gameplay videos. The game is fully playable and they are able to test out all of the weapons, levels, and features of the game. The frame rate looks solid. We are all going to be playing the game in a couple weeks, still months before its release. You have to have pretty stable code to open yourself up to millions of beta testers months before your game ships. That wouldn't be happening if the graphics were already maxed out.

In the end, though, Bungie seems very focused right now on getting the gameplay just right above making for a pretty graphical show. And, frankly, that's the approach every game developer should be taking.

ArchieGates

What you seem to misunderstand is that the graphics aren't something they can simply tack on in a mere 6 months. If the game is this close to production (enough to have a demo open to the public), then they're just about done with the EVERYTHING!!!! You don't create miracles in the last phases of development for ANY system, because you can't go back and make radical changes (not when you're getting ready for certification and accredidation!!!). If Bungie is going to open a beta to the public like this, then they know full and well that it's going to respresent a final product and that everyone will critique it as such. That's how it works. 

Right, so one H2 level that is demonstrated at E3 but then cut represents a crime against Humanity, while HL2 levels, creatures, and weapons demonstrated at E3 then subsequently cut is a non-issue. You may not have known about their existence, but people who follow E3 and/or the leaked beta knew. People who followed the development of the game knew about their existence.

You have absolutely nothing to back up your assertion that these elements were replaced with something better in HL2 but not H2. That is just grasping at straws.

Uncle_Tbag

It isn't the creatures and guns that we're talking about here! We're talking about a completely different looking game! You can't tell me that the Halo 2 you saw in the E3's leading up to it's release don't look exponentially different. Sure, they took out some tangible objects in the game world, but the appearance and gameplay were either left intact or improved; not the case with Halo 2. 

You know what's funny? Most of this thread seems to revolve around Halo2 than the upcoming sequel :| I think this has been debated more than enough. After all the new screenshots GG provided it seems not one side is going to agree and this is going to get worse. I'm quite surprised the thread has not been locked. Anyways this is going to get derailed and off topic given the posts of "X games did this X game did that" and so on. Oh well let's see how far this goes :DD3s7rUc71oN

:D  Back on topic: Do you think that MS's flagship title is living up to it's name? Where's the hype? Are you underwhelmed with the pre-launch information we're getting? This is NOTHING like the stuff leading up to Halo 2.